TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ping bills was to establish description of goods and the Examination Report was countersigned by the petitioner who had also given the Let Export Order (LEO), the evidentiary value of these documents cannot be denied now by the petitioner merely on the ground that the original copies of shipping bills were not available during the course of the inquiry especially when he had himself admitted to have countersigned the Examination Report. The Tribunal has rightly held that there is sufficient material before the Disciplinary Authority to reach the conclusion that Charge is proved and to impose the punishment - petition dismissed. - Writ Petition No. 745 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2016 - D.H. Waghela, CJ and V.K. Tahilramani, J. Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng bills were brought to him by the CHA Clerk around 5.00 p.m. on 23-5-1997 and it was urged upon him that the shipping bills were urgent as on 23-5-1997 there was a cut-off date for the concerned vessel and as the petitioner was overburdened with work and he had an appointment with the Dentist at 7 O clock, the petitioner wanted to finish their Examination Report of the goods examined by him. Therefore, the petitioner told CHA Clerk to get the examination done from any Examiner. Subsequently, the CHA Clerk brought one sample to the petitioner which appeared to be made of flocked fabric and being in a hurry, the petitioner did not examine the sample thoroughly. The examination was not conducted in his presence and he has not seen the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ify the correctness of the goods. Thus, by doing so, Shri J.N. Meena, Appraiser has exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and has thus, contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 . 4. The Enquiry Officer vide his Report dated 13-10-2008 held that two Articles of Charge against the petitioner had not been established. The Disciplinary Authority however did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued a disagreement Memo dated 19-1-2010 to the petitioner. The petitioner vide his representation dated 9-2-2010 pointed out that the Inquiry Officer had given a detailed report holding him not guilty of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Inquiry Officer in holding the Article of Charge at No. II as not proved . 6. The Disciplinary Authority after his detailed reasons and findings imposed the penalty of reduction in petitioner s pay by 2 stages from ₹ 22,410/- plus ₹ 5,400/- in the time scale of pay of ₹ 9,300-34,800 (Revised Pay Band) + ₹ 4,800 (Grade Pay) in PB-2 for a period of one year with effect from 1-10-2010. It was further directed that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his further increments of pay. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal vide dated 19-11-2010 before the Appellate Authority who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port in the case of the 9 shipping bills and admitted that being in a hurry he had not examined the sample thoroughly but since he was preoccupied and could not supervise the examination himself, he countersigned the Examination Report. This statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 has evidentiary value which can be considered for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings. It is well settled that strict rules of evidence do not apply to disciplinary proceedings. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original shipping bills were neither produced in the disciplinary proceedings nor the copies of the shipping bills were made available to the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings which fact woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|